Jagat Singh Vs. Jai Dev - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [e.s. venkataramiah and; m.m. dutt, jj.] section 5 of the uttar pradesh imposition of ceiling on land holdings act, 1960 provided that on and from the com- mencement of the u.p. imposition of ceiling on land holdings (amendment) act, 1972, which came into force on 8.6.1973, no tenure-holder would he entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout uttar pradesh, any land in excess of the 'ceiling area', as defined in sub-s.(2) ors.3 of the act. since smt. anma begum, the tenure-holder was holding in the aggregate land in excess of the ceiling area, she became liable to surrender the surplus land. pursuant to a general notice issued under s.9 to all tenure-imlders, holding land in excess of the ceiling area, she did not file any state- ment before the prescribed authority- after the publication of the general notice but before she could he served with a notice under s.10(2) she died. the prescribed authority not knowing of her death issued a notice under s.10(2) calling upon her to show cause why the statement prepared by him under s. 10(1) should not he taken as correct. the father of respondent no. 4, one of the .heirs, filed objections which were over-ruled, and it was declared that smt. arena begum was holding 17.37 hectares of land as surplus land. the district judge holding that since the tenure-holder was dead by the time the notice under s. 10(2) was issued, the order of the prescribed authority passed against a dead person could not be allowed to stand, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the prescribed authority and remanded the case. fresh notices under s.10(2) were issued to the heirs. respondent no. 3 contended that she held only 91.12 bighas of land as her onefourth share and that 12 acres of land had been transferred through registered sale deed far adequate consideration and in good faith and the land to that extent should be excluded from the holding while determining the surplus land and that the determina- tion of the surplus land should be made on the basis of the share held by each of them as an individual tenure-holder. the prescribed authority held that there was no surplus land that could be claimed from the holding in question since none of the heirs of deceased tenure-holder was in possession of the land in excess of the ceiling area. the appeal by the state government against the order of the prescribed authority was dismissed by the civil judge holding that smt. anma begum could not be treated as a tenure-holder after her death, and that since none of the heirs of amna begum was holding the land in excess of the ceiling area they were not liable to surrender any surplus land. the petition under article 226 filed by the state gov- ernment was dismissed holding that the state government was not entitled to question the correctness of the orders of the prescribed authority and the civil judge as the order of remand of the case passed by the district judge had become final. allowing the appeal, held: 1. the orders passed by the high court, the civil judge and the prescribed authority are set aside and the case is remanded to the prescribed authority for fresh disposal. [107d]. the reason given by the high court for holding that the contentions urged on behalf of the state government were barred by the rule of res judicata is wholly untenable since the district judge while remanding the case had nut recorded any finding on the merits of the contentions of the parties. he had set aside the order of the prescribed authority passed earlier only on the ground that a proceeding which had been commenced against a dead person was a nullity. he, however, remanded the case to the prescribed authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law after issuing notices to the heirs of smt. amna begum whom he wrongly described as tenure-holders so far as her estate was concerned. the high court was, therefore, wrong in dismissing the writ petition on that ground. [104d-105a] smt. amna begum was alive on 8.6.1973 on which date ceiling on the holdings in the state of uttar pradesh was imposed by s.5 of the act. smt. amna begum became liable to surrender the surplus land in excess of what she could retain in accordance with that section. merely because she had died before the issue of the notice under s.10(2) of the act the liability to surrender the surplus land would not come to an end. [105c]. rule 19 of the uttar pradesh imposition of ceiling on land holdings rules, 1961 framed under the act provides that where a tenure-holder dies before the publication of the general notice under s.9 of the act, such publication shah be deemed to apply to the executor, administrator or other legal representatives and the prescribed authority may proceed to determine the ceiling area applicable to the deceased person as if such executor administrator of other legal representatives were the tenure-holder- it also pro- vides that where a tenure-holder dies before he is served with a notice under sub-s. (2) of s. 10 of the act, the prescribed authority may serve such notice on his executor, administrator or other legal representatives and may proceed to determine the ceiling area applicable to the deceased person as if such executor, administrator or other legal representatives were the tenureholders. [105d-f]. the principle applicable to the determination of the surplus land under the land reform laws in the hands of person holding land is the date on which the ceiling is imposed. [105g] 'the surplus land in the case of a person who held land in excess of the ceiling area on the appointed day had to he determined as an the appointed day even though such person might have died before the actual extent of surplus land was determined -,tad notified. the persons on whom his holding devolved on his death would be liable to surrender the surplus land as on the appointed day because the liabil- ity attached to the holding of the deceased would not come to an end on his death. [i06e-f] raghunath laxman wani v.state of maharashtra, [1971] 3 s.c.c. 391 at page 397 & bhikoba shankar dhumal (dead) by lrs. and others v. mohan lal punchand tathed and others, [1982] 1 s.c.c680, followed. for the purpose of deciding the surplus land which is liable to be surrendered from and out of the estate of smt. arena begum, the relevant date that might be taken into account is 8.6.1973 on which date the ceiling on holdings was imposed and she became liable to surrender the surplus land. her hews or legal representatives together are entitled to retain out of her estate only an extent of land equal to the area which she could have retained in her hands after the imposition of ceiling on land holdings and are liable to surrender the surplus land. [107b-c] - the decree which he has secured in enforcement of such a pre-emption right, must fail and the suit, to the extent to which the lands lie within the state of punjab, must be dismissed. 4. thus, in so far as the lands in punjab state are concerned, the sale deed is valid and the lands which lie within the haryana state are concerned, the sale deed is bad. the result is that the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent by the high court will, in so far as it relates to the haryana lands, stand since the sale, as we have observed, to that extent is bad.v.r. krishna iyer, j.1. the point involved in this ease is specifically covered by a decision rendered by this court in : [1975]1scr605 (amarjit kaur v. pritam singh).2. the action is one for pre-emption and the son of the vendor is the preemptor, who is the plaintiff in the trial court and respondent before us. the vendee, defendant is the appellant before us. the right of pre-emption has now been taken away by section 3 of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973. this operates only within the territorial limits of the punjab state, the result is that the lands covered by the sale deed, in so far as they lie within the state of punjab, cannot be subjected to the right of pre-emption of the plaintiff. the decree which he has secured in enforcement of such a pre-emption right, must fail and the suit, to the extent to which the lands lie within the state of punjab, must be dismissed.3. both sides agree that so far as the lands which lie within the haryana state - a part of the lands sold is within the haryana state will - not be affected by the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act 1973 and that the sale deed so far as that land is concerned, will not stand.4. thus, in so far as the lands in punjab state are concerned, the sale deed is valid and the lands which lie within the haryana state are concerned, the sale deed is bad. the result is that the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent by the high court will, in so far as it relates to the haryana lands, stand since the sale, as we have observed, to that extent is bad. the rest of the decree will not stand and is hereby set aside. the decree of the high court will be modified in this manner. parties will bear their own costs throughout.